"... E3 last night was not representative of the gaming industry of which I知 a part.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You've bought the game. The developers want you to spend more money on the game that you've already bought.

Which off course completely ignores the fact that a lot of DLC is developed after a game is released because people want to play more of that game (OLD WORLD BLUES) - it seems rather silly to do that gratis, and it has been a practice that has been around for over 20 years.

Also, there's a difference between promoting and reporting - again. What you are saying is equivelant of saying that the BBC is promoting the taliban by saying that they have killed some french soldiers - Not reporting it, however, would be more akin to censorship.

Ok. I'll try and explain this in the nicest way possible so that the journalists(?) with a hit count meter understand.

DLC is dlc.

Wrong.

There's good DLC and bad DLC, in the same way there are good expansion packs and bad expansion packs, good games and bad games. Personally I'm not a fan of the whole "let's judge it on when it was made/released rather than how good it is and what it costs" approach but to judge it all as worthless is just doing that exact same thing on a higher level.

There's good DLC and bad DLC, in the same way there are good expansion packs and bad expansion packs, good games and bad games. Personally I'm not a fan of the whole "let's judge it on when it was made/released rather than how good it is and what it costs" approach but to judge it all as worthless is just doing that exact same thing on a higher level.

Judge things on their merit?

What utter nonsense.

NalanoH. Wildmoon
Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
Attorney at Lawl
"His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

Out of all the many and numerous opinions put forward by this website, why have you got your knickers in a twist about this one, Rii? I'm genuinely puzzled. This can't be the first one you disagreed with or thought was badly written?

My reaction to this story is unusual but not unprecedented. I have previously reacted in a similar manner to a string of stories run ... oh, probably a couple years back, on World of Warcraft. The common factors between the two sets of stories and prime reasons I found them objectionable are --

Condescension/Superiority
Stirring the prejudices of the Mob

To which are added, in this case, hypocrisy ("eww, those dirty AAA console-tard games ... now stay with us for our stories on Watch Dogs and Far Cry 3 and Tomb Raider and and and), selective use of evidence, and the lack of any meaningful (i.e. non-obvious) point. The summation of which is that the story has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

If the story were typical of RPS' output* then I wouldn't be here, but as a one-off it's not a big deal and I certainly don't hold any grudge against Mr. Walker. I offered my opinion in the comments for the story in question and that was that so far as I was concerned. I subsequently clarified my assessment when someone else created a thread about the article, and I brought up The Verge piece simply because I stumbled across it and thought "hey, this article seems very familiar ... only it isn't multifariously objectionable like that other one." I can see where the impression that I've been seething about this for the past week comes from, but it isn't the case.

* It seems to have vanished now, but back in RPS' youth there was a bit on the 'About Us' page about RPS being about celebrating the oft-neglected field of PC gaming, and was explicitly not a rejection of the value of console games or endorsement of PC master race discourse, etc. And this was a very pleasing statement, with such adolescent sectarianism being one of the most objectionable features of most gaming discourse. And in practice RPS has generally stuck to that line despite some rather objectionable industry practices that would naturally tempt one to declare a pox on all console houses, and in opposition to the fact that a significant proportion of RPS' audience is actually pretty comfortable believing itself fundamentally superior to those dirty console masses for whatever reason. Which is why it's disappointing when RPS slips to promoting those ugly sentiments amongst its audience by, for instance, basically railing against console platform holders and AAA publishers for having the temerity to hold press conferences.

Also, I don't get the snark. Has John Walker personally insulted you or something? Or is that just the default tone for when you interact with people?

I tend to return condescension for condescension and to assume the burdens of such directed at others, absent or not, whom I feel have been wronged. In some respects that's a character flaw that I need to work on (i.e. returning an eye for an eye runs the risk of compromising my own integrity) and in others I'm pretty happy with it.

To be fair, it's basically a point and click adventure without the pointing and clicking, so it immediately has better gameplay than others in its genre. Unfortunately, that means it's commonly mistaken for an ARPG, of which it's not a great example.

Of course they're withholding content. If no company withheld content, games would never get released, and nothing would ever have a sequel.

If you don't think the full-priced version of a game is worth full price sans the DLC, just don't buy it. If you think it's good value even "without" whatever the DLC is, buy it. Calmly state your opinion with your wallet.

What the headlines seem to say: "They're keeping good stuff away from us! Waaahhh! I want it all!"

What they should say: "Capcom's latest fighter is only worth about ten quid because there are only 4 playable characters"

Whether things are held back or not is irrelevant, that has been happening in all forms of entertainment since the invention of... I don't know, speakers. The issue is whether, by "holding back" content, publishers are actually leaving behind an inadequate stripped-down version of a game, and trying to sell it for full price. And again, go to their forums and tell them "that thing you released isn't worth ｣40," and wait for a sale while you play games that you think are worth your money.

I went to a fast food place today and they purposefully withheld fries and a drink from my burger order and then tried to charge me more money when I asked for fries and a drink! They told me it was some kind of "value meal", I told them I don't buy day one DLC.

I went to a fast food place today and they purposefully withheld fries and a drink from my burger order and then tried to charge me more money when I asked for fries and a drink! They told me it was some kind of "value meal", I told them I don't buy day one DLC.

That's nothing. I went to buy an album and they purposefully withheld the B-sides, saying that if I wanted them, I'd have to not only pay extra for them, but also re-buy songs that were already on the album. What's worse is that some of this B-side DLC was actually released before the album was.

I went to a fast food place today and they purposefully withheld fries and a drink from my burger order and then tried to charge me more money when I asked for fries and a drink! They told me it was some kind of "value meal", I told them I don't buy day one DLC.

So all we have to do to make sense of abusive DLC is to replace the notion of games as art with the notion of games as fast food. Nice.